Molavian:Ok, first step is to require manufacturers to stop adding it to everything they make.

Farking THIS.

There's nothing wrong with having a cookie now and again, or ice cream, or cake or whatever "sweet" food you enjoy.

The problem is that EVERYTHING has farking high fructose corn syrup in it these days. Ketchup tastes just fine on it's own, it doesn't need sugar. Neither do a lot of other things. Remove that and you'll remove a lot of the American sugar intake in our diets.

But noooo, let's tax/ban soda pop instead. That'll learn 'em!

/just a money grab, nothing more.//makes as much sense as taxing cigarettes, but ignoring cigars.

Corvus:Why is it that the diet of Japanese and italians who have a diet of more simple carbs are thinner then us?

We eat far more sugar. Wheat and rice are much more complex carbohydrates by comparison, and are MUCH better for you than a lot of our junk. So yes, it IS okay to eat more rice, if we also cut down on the HFCS that we consume by the truckload. We eat ice-cream and Fruit Loops and drink 44oz Colas with our ketchup-slathered burgers and BBQ-dipped chicken nuggets, all of which contain the simplest possible sugar of all: pure glucose (corn syrup is slightly less than half pure glucose).

Corvus:iaazathot: Corvus: iaazathot: Japanese are thinner, on average, than Americans, but that is changing, because they are adopting a higher sugar intake with more Westernized diets.

So Japanese diet is not increasing in calories too?? You are saying their calorie intake is the same as they are getting fatter? Or your just ignoring that point?

If they were to increase their calories by 35% eating more vegetables, weight gain would be non-significant. The type of food you eat DOES matter.

Are you always this obtuse?

Calories can be a part of the issue, but it is not the entirety.

I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic? Your response patterns seem to indicate that you may be.

But vegetables are a low calorie density food. Yes food does matter. Some are calorie dense and some are not. You are saying the same thing. You are saying "Well if they eat low calorie foods they won't gain more weight" but that's exactly my point. That doesn't prove I am wrong.

No, I stated that they eat +35% total calories in vegetables. Total calories goes up. I am sorry, your ability at reading comprehension and your near frothing about this Paleo thing makes impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you. You really need to slow down and think your logic through a bit more.

While I'm not necessarily a fan of HFCS, I must point out that virtually any homemade ketchup recipe will include things like molasses and/or brown sugar. The entire flavor profile of ketchup is supposed a sweet/tangy combination. There IS NO ketchup without sugar.

Corvus:iaazathot: I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic?

Weird to me it seems you are insulting someone because you don't like the question he is asking because you are afraid of it causing cognitive dissonance with your belief system.

No, you remind me of an assistant I had who was diagnosed as being on the high end of the autistic range. It was a very serious question. Having certain conversations with him was near impossible, and reading your responses just seems strangely familiar.

iaazathot:boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.

Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.

While many Americans are in that situation, lets not blame the sugar alone, it's total caloric intake. No food or combination of them has the power to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

While metabolic disorders are a different horse, acute insulin levels in healthy adults are not going to have an impact on anything. Fat and energy stores are flucating in the moment all throughout the day. You are always both anabolic and catabolic. End of the day, week, month, year it's energy in vs. energy out.

Gawdzila:Corvus: Why is it that the diet of Japanese and italians who have a diet of more simple carbs are thinner then us?

We eat far more sugar. Wheat and rice are much more complex carbohydrates by comparison, and are MUCH better for you than a lot of our junk. So yes, it IS okay to eat more rice, if we also cut down on the HFCS that we consume by the truckload. We eat ice-cream and Fruit Loops and drink 44oz Colas with our ketchup-slathered burgers and BBQ-dipped chicken nuggets, all of which contain the simplest possible sugar of all: pure glucose (corn syrup is slightly less than half pure glucose).

Thanks. That is the most reasonable answer I have got so far.

So follow up then are thing like rice and pasta fine under the paelo since what you just said suppose to be true? Because this is the first time I have heard that only sugars are bad under the Paleo diet. I heard it was anti-simple carbs? Those people are wrong?

iaazathot:Corvus: iaazathot: I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic?

Weird to me it seems you are insulting someone because you don't like the question he is asking because you are afraid of it causing cognitive dissonance with your belief system.

No, you remind me of an assistant I had who was diagnosed as being on the high end of the autistic range. It was a very serious question. Having certain conversations with him was near impossible, and reading your responses just seems strangely familiar.

Goodnight...

Yes more insulting then, running off. this is the normal reaction I get from the followers of the Paleo-religion.

boozerman:iaazathot: boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.

Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.

While many Americans are in that situation, lets not blame the sugar alone, it's total caloric intake. No food or combination of them has the power to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

While metabolic disorders are a different horse, acute insulin levels in healthy adults are not going to have an impact on anything. Fat and energy stores are flucating in the moment all throughout the day. You are always both anabolic and catabolic. End of the day, week, month, year it's energy in vs. energy out.

Really, you are saying that a 1000 calorie diet in sugar is the same as a 1000 calorie diet in cruciferous vegetables? Sorry, if I am misunderstanding you, but that seems to be what you are saying.

Corvus:Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.

No, you answered an imagined question.

You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

boozerman:iaazathot: boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.

Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.

While many Americans are in that situation, lets not blame the sugar alone, it's total caloric intake. No food or combination of them has the power to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

While metabolic disorders are a different horse, acute insulin levels in healthy adults are not going to have an impact on anything. Fat and energy stores are flucating in the moment all throughout the day. You are always both anabolic and catabolic. End of the day, week, month, year it's energy in vs. energy out.

You sound like a sane person who knows what he is talking about.

These guys read a book then they think they are smarter then all the scientist out there who say they are wrong. i have talked to some of these guys who after reading that book that they knew more then institutes and PHDs doing studies on the matter.

One guy said that recent report about meat and cancer was wrong because they didn't normalize the data based on life style. I pointed out to him that they actually did do that and it says it in the report and he started insulting me.

I am the first to admit I am not an expert about the subject but I can tell bad science and people trying to sell books.

Vlad_the_Inaner:Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.

No, you answered an imagined question.

You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

A good non-diet book on the subject is

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Good Calories, Bad Calories

Yes, Yes I know your bible. I know the book that the guys is making millions on and I have read the other side of people and institutes that say he is full of crap.

I have no idea what the Paleo-religion is. I did answer your questions and pointed out exactly where your logical fallacy was, as did some others.

You skirted right around them and then changed your questions completely to whether rice is allowed in the Paleo religion.

Again:

Yes, rice is a starch, but much more complex than simple sugars.Yes, Japanese eat more rice than Americans on average.No, Japanese do not eat more simple starches than Americans. (here is your logical fallacy, all rice is a starch, not all starches are rice)Yes, Japanese are, on average, thinner than Americans.

Because your argument is premised on a straight forward logical fallacy, it fails.

Corvus:First you say my question are being answered then you give an excuse why no one is answering them. Which is it? Then why can't you just answer them?

Did you not read it, or did you not understand?I explained why people weren't answering the way you wanted, and it's not an "excuse", it is a good reason.

It is because your questions were too simplistic and "leading" in a greasy, lawyer-like way. They're the sort of limited-in-scope questions a defense lawyer asks when he wants to make a witness sound like they're in his favor, even though he knows that he'd look bad if they told the whole story.

Basically, your questions are designed to extract a half-truth, because the whole truth makes you sound stupid. But nobody wants to give you a half-truth because they know you'll twist it around. So when they give you the whole truth instead, you complain that they didn't answer your question.

The truth is that they DID answer it, and HAVE answered it several times. They just didn't give you the lie by omission that you wanted.

DrPainMD:I remember the good old days, when liberals said, "it's my body... I'll do what I want with it."

That was before they decided to give away free health care and then realized that they'd still have to pay for it with your money.

/This dietary crazy train will end with people bringing back crazier proposals, like bans on foods and eugenics./But at least we'll have legalized pot./Oh who am I kidding. Liberals are as likely to legalize pot as conservatives are to give back gun rights./A truck full of promises and fifty cents will get you a can of soda you aren't allowed to drink.

Vlad_the_Inaner:Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.

No, you answered an imagined question.

You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

A good non-diet book on the subject is

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Good Calories, Bad Calories

Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.

Vlad_the_Inaner:You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Nope never said it was.

Once again changing the subject. I am talking about diet habits and weight gain. I am not talking about other health effects of sugar. You guys keep playing this shell game. At least one guy admitted earlier that he did was doing it.

While I'm not necessarily a fan of HFCS, I must point out that virtually any homemade ketchup recipe will include things like molasses and/or brown sugar. The entire flavor profile of ketchup is supposed a sweet/tangy combination. There IS NO ketchup without sugar.

MarkEC: Put the fat back in and take the sugar out, and people will eat fewer calories because your system tells your brain you are full sooner when you eat fat compared to sugar.

Reverting back to how things were before is not a solution. There's a reason why there was a craze to remove so much fat from our packaged foods - people were getting fat. Obviously replacing that with sugar didn't make anything better, but we need to find a way to do it without so much fat AND sugar.

Not really...

The problem is NOT the food, whether fat or sugar. 150 years ago, people in the Midwest got up in the morning and ate a breakfast that most likely included pork steaks or chops, lots of potatoes, eggs, griddle cakes, and perhaps bacon. A freaking TON of both carbohydrates and fat.

The reason they weren't fat -- and very few were -- is that, after breakfast, they went outside and worked their asses off (literally) in a twelve-hour-plus day of intense physical labor. If they had pushed away from the breakfast table, gone in the other room, and played video games for twelve hours every day, they'd look a lot different.

Corvus:boozerman: iaazathot: boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.

Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.

While many Americans are in that situation, lets not blame the sugar alone, it's total caloric intake. No food or combination of them has the power to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

While metabolic disorders are a different horse, acute insulin levels in healthy adults are not going to have an impact on anything. Fat and energy stores are flucating in the moment all throughout the day. You are always both anabolic and catabolic. End of the day, week, month, year it's energy in vs. energy out.

You sound like a sane person who knows what he is talking about.

These guys read a book then they think they are smarter then all the scientist out there who say they are wrong. i have talked to some of these guys who after reading that book that they knew more then institutes and PHDs doing studies on the matter.

boozerman:Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.

No, you answered an imagined question.

You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

A good non-diet book on the subject is

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Good Calories, Bad Calories

Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.

While those are valid criticisms, I don't think they would entirely invalidate the data. I think you are a bit too much baby with the bathwater. Is there any reason to think that processes would radically change with different concentrations of fructose. Is there any reason to think that rat processing of sugars is so different from humans that the results are not useful in, at the very least, constructing studies for humans?

There is too much either or in this field, which, unfortunately, points to the fadishness that corvus MAYBE pointing too, although it seems that he is just as firmly stuck in a camp as he accuses others (still don't know what the Paleo-religion he keeps accusing everyone of is).

Corvus:Because this is the first time I have heard that only sugars are bad under the Paleo diet. I heard it was anti-simple carbs? Those people are wrong?

I don't know, honestly, I've never done the Paleo diet. However, if one has problems with their insulin system (as a diabetic might), the less starches someone eats the better off they will be. Also, since this is a diet, it should be noted that you can get more rapid weight/fat loss if you induce ketosis by eating next to zero carbs. This may be part of the point as well, especially if they have an "introductory" period of some sort where most of the weight loss occurs.

boozerman:Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.

Do you have a link that points out these flaws in his book? I have read thing showing he is wrong but mostly they are not in reference to his book. The problem is this book is catching on like wild fire however the scientific studies and institutes that disagree with this book now one knows about or are geared to the scientific community.

It's like scientists and climate change. A lot of FUD came out against human climate change before the science community did a lot argue it in the mainstream and by then the "skeptic" campaign took hold.

iaazathot:Japanese eat more simple starches than Americans. I pointed it out twice. You keep skipping over it and changed it to calories.

Yep and they eat less calories too. And they are thinner than Americans in general.

Americans eat one of the highest calorie diets and are one of the heaviest. Am I saying it's only about calorie intake? Of course not. But calorie intake (and calories burnt) is the biggest correlating factor.

Corvus:boozerman: Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.

Do you have a link that points out these flaws in his book? I have read thing showing he is wrong but mostly they are not in reference to his book. The problem is this book is catching on like wild fire however the scientific studies and institutes that disagree with this book now one knows about or are geared to the scientific community.

It's like scientists and climate change. A lot of FUD came out against human climate change before the science community did a lot argue it in the mainstream and by then the "skeptic" campaign took hold.

It's mostly been a combination of chasing down full text studies on pubmed and other sources, reading Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, Leigh Peele, etc, and my background in Human biology and physiology.

So saying " Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches answer the question" over and over is discussing diet habits and weight gain?

Fark no. You focused down on a particular case, and now whine when that particular case is responded to.

Corvus:iaazathot: Japanese eat more simple starches than Americans. I pointed it out twice. You keep skipping over it and changed it to calories.

Yep and they eat less calories too. And they are thinner than Americans in general.

Americans eat one of the highest calorie diets and are one of the heaviest. Am I saying it's only about calorie intake? Of course not. But calorie intake (and calories burnt) is the biggest correlating factor.

But they don't eat more starches, and your original qestions said nothing about calories, you threw that in once your logical fallacy was called.

Rice is a starch, not all starches are rice.

You have skipped over and made your substitution a third time. It's ok, if you want to include calories, but your starches statement is false and a very straightforward logical fallacy.

So, Corvus, I answered your straightforward questions with straightforward answers that pointed out your logical fallacy. I am not saying the Paleo-religion (apparently a diet of some sort) is right, but the thesis you presented is unfortunately hinged on a huge logical inconsistency.

I am not interested in changing your mind. I am just pointing out that you got your questions answered, and then you moved the goal posts by introducing caloric intake and trying to remove the inconsistency.

boozerman:Corvus: boozerman: Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.

Do you have a link that points out these flaws in his book? I have read thing showing he is wrong but mostly they are not in reference to his book. The problem is this book is catching on like wild fire however the scientific studies and institutes that disagree with this book now one knows about or are geared to the scientific community.

It's like scientists and climate change. A lot of FUD came out against human climate change before the science community did a lot argue it in the mainstream and by then the "skeptic" campaign took hold.

It's mostly been a combination of chasing down full text studies on pubmed and other sources, reading Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, Leigh Peele, etc, and my background in Human biology and physiology.

But these people have read one book about the subject. They of course know much much more than you do about the subject or all the other scientist who say they are wrong.

Corvus:What am I lying about? Just repeating I am lying doesn't make me an actual liar.

I said "lie by omission".The point is that your questions are so directed and so focused on such a narrow little yes/no answer to one specific little ingot of a point, that they ignore TONS of other information that is relevant to the discussion. You ask them as if they were a neat little packaged proof of your argument. They're not, but answering them the way you want would make them seem that way.

Either it uses fake sugar (in which case it would be terrible and I'd refuse to eat it), or no sweetener at all, in which case it may taste good, but it won't taste like ketchup.

I don't adulterate my foods. Substitution cookery is a non-starter in my book. I'm all for new stuff, interesting spins on old recipes, anything goes. But if I want something I'm going to eat it -- not figure out a way I can kind of have it, almost, in a way that is sort of satisfying.

iaazathot:So, Corvus, I answered your straightforward questions with straightforward answers that pointed out your logical fallacy. I am not saying the Paleo-religion (apparently a diet of some sort) is right, but the thesis you presented is unfortunately hinged on a huge logical inconsistency.

I am not interested in changing your mind. I am just pointing out that you got your questions answered, and then you moved the goal posts by introducing caloric intake and trying to remove the inconsistency.

This time, I really and signing off.

What "inconsistency"? is your argument that US citizens eat more starches then Japanese? That's not an "inconsistency" or a "fallacy". That's just answer no to my question.

Gawdzila:Corvus: What am I lying about? Just repeating I am lying doesn't make me an actual liar.

I said "lie by omission".The point is that your questions are so directed and so focused on such a narrow little yes/no answer to one specific little ingot of a point, that they ignore TONS of other information that is relevant to the discussion. You ask them as if they were a neat little packaged proof of your argument. They're not, but answering them the way you want would make them seem that way.

Well why can't you answer my question and then clarify it with more detail? Why would that be so hard.

Gawdzila:Corvus: What am I lying about? Just repeating I am lying doesn't make me an actual liar.

I said "lie by omission".The point is that your questions are so directed and so focused on such a narrow little yes/no answer to one specific little ingot of a point, that they ignore TONS of other information that is relevant to the discussion. You ask them as if they were a neat little packaged proof of your argument. They're not, but answering them the way you want would make them seem that way.

AbbeySomeone: The Paleo website has great recipes for condiments.

Either it uses fake sugar (in which case it would be terrible and I'd refuse to eat it), or no sweetener at all, in which case it may taste good, but it won't taste like ketchup.

I don't adulterate my foods. Substitution cookery is a non-starter in my book. I'm all for new stuff, interesting spins on old recipes, anything goes. But if I want something I'm going to eat it -- not figure out a way I can kind of have it, almost, in a way that is sort of satisfying.

Check out one of their recipe sites. I found a recipe for baconaise. They don't use any artificial anything. I made the ketchup and it was damn tasty.HereLink

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?

So this has nothing to do with starch intake?

FTA:

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

That has nothing to do with "starches" when they say "starches"?

A simple "no" would have sufficed. If you don't have a point of view, that's fine.

Wow talk about just ignoring what I said to believe what you want.

When someone says "Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center." How is a discussion based on starches and how they affect people not relevant?

Corvus:iaazathot: So, Corvus, I answered your straightforward questions with straightforward answers that pointed out your logical fallacy. I am not saying the Paleo-religion (apparently a diet of some sort) is right, but the thesis you presented is unfortunately hinged on a huge logical inconsistency.

I am not interested in changing your mind. I am just pointing out that you got your questions answered, and then you moved the goal posts by introducing caloric intake and trying to remove the inconsistency.

This time, I really and signing off.

What "inconsistency"? is your argument that US citizens eat more starches then Japanese? That's not an "inconsistency" or a "fallacy". That's just answer no to my question.

Have you ever been to Japan? Fyi, most Japanese folks eat fresh fish, chicken, and a variety of vegetables. In fact, the tallest/healthiest Japanese populations are the coastal regions who eat the most protein. The smallest Japanese are the western/inland populations who eat western diets and a lot ofbrc

Corvus:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?

So this has nothing to do with starch intake?

FTA:

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

That has nothing to do with "starches" when they say "starches"?

A simple "no" would have sufficed. If you don't have a point of view, that's fine.

Wow talk about just ignoring what I said to believe what you want.

When someone says "Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center." How is a discussion based on starches and how they affect people not relevant?

Really this is like arguing evolution with Bevets.

So your point is "I don't understand Japanese diets therefore Japanese diets are healthy" ??

Corvus:iaazathot: Corvus: LoneWolf343: You think glucose is a toxin? Try living without it, and we'll see what happens.

I heard some other idiot say this once in person. They have no farking clue what the word "toxin" means and they want us to take them serious on thier BS of pretending the obesity epidemic of the last 30 years was cause 10,000 years ago. They are a bunch of idiots.

Sugar is a "toxin" great show me deaths from OD of direct ingestion of sugar! I'll bet someone here I can ingest any amount of sugar that's possible cosumable and not die. Anything else that is a real toxin there is some point you will die from taking it.

The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.

You are correct, you did not say that. I misread the above quote. However, your basic argument is still reductionistic and pretty irrational.

So is sugar a "toxin"? Do you admit that's a false statement made by the "paleo religion"? or that it's just "unhealthy" which was my actual point that you mischaracterized?

I am confused by the responses I had gotten. Does that make me a troll?

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you ever been to Japan? Fyi, most Japanese folks eat fresh fish, chicken, and a variety of vegetables. In fact, the tallest/healthiest Japanese populations are the coastal regions who eat the most protein. The smallest Japanese are the western/inland populations who eat western diets and a lot ofbrc

1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.2) HEIGHT IS NOT OBESITY SO STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AGAIN!!!

this is how this has bee going:

Me: Look these people in these countries have low calorie high starch diets and they are very thin.

Paleo-Relgion: They are shorter! They have XYZ health issue!!!

Me: Umm aren't we talking about obesity not about other health related issues. I never said there wasn't other issues with the types of food but we are talking specifically about over weight.